The trial court's discretion regarding non-bailable warrant recalls is supported by adequate justification for the accused's absence.

ORDER :

Challenging the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2024 in SC.No.322 of 2017 petitioner-accused No.5 filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the order passed on 16.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2024 in SC No.322 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

2. Heard Mr.J.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed for recall of NBW against the petitioner. It is submitted that the absence of the petitioner on 03.09.2021 is neither willful nor negligent but due to multiple health problems and due to shock owing to death of a family member and as such, he could not appear before the trial Court.

4. He further submitted that this Court in Crl.P.No.12769 of 2023 passed an order, wherein the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Achampet on 11.01.2024 and to file an application under section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. and directed the trial Court to recall the warrants pending subject to the petitioner executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter the Magistrate shall commit the case to the sessions Court. Despite the said order, the trial Court has dismissed the said petition. He also placed reliance in Crl.P.No.12140 of 2023, wherein this Court held that the accused can be represented by his counsel and he need not be present physically during the proceedings when the application for recall of NBW is considered, and has allowed the said petition. Hence prays to allow the petition.

5. On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the order as the accused is absconding since long time and the interference of this Court is not required at this stage. Hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. On perusal of the record and material, it is apparent that the petitioner is absent before the trial Court for several adjournments and filed a petition seeking to recall NBW through his counsel without appearing before the trial Court. Due to the non appearance of the accused, the case is pending before the trial Court, wherein there are as many as 10 accused in this case. Further there was no reasonable cause and explanation assigned by way of any document for the absence of the petitioner from 03.09.2021 till the date of impugned order. Though it is settled principle that for recalling of NBW personal appearance need not be insisted upon as Section 205 (1) of Cr.P.C., enables the Court to dispense with personal appearance, but as per 205(2) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused. However, the trial Court has rightly held that though there is a provision for recall of NBW in the absence of the petitioner, the case law regarding the same cannot be permitted to be misused, as the accused neither appeared before the Court nor placed any document assigning any reasonable cause for his absence before the Court for such a long period. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.